Fact Check: There was a genocide in gaza

Fact Check: There was a genocide in gaza

March 17, 2025by TruthOrFake
?
VERDICT
Unverified

# Claim Analysis: "There was a genocide in Gaza" ## Introduction The claim that "there was a genocide in Gaza" has emerged amidst ongoing conflict an...

Claim Analysis: "There was a genocide in Gaza"

Introduction

The claim that "there was a genocide in Gaza" has emerged amidst ongoing conflict and humanitarian crises in the region, particularly following the escalation of violence that began on October 7, 2023. This assertion has been made by various organizations, legal entities, and experts, leading to significant international discourse. However, the term "genocide" carries specific legal definitions and implications, which necessitate a careful examination of the evidence and context surrounding this claim.

What We Know

  1. Casualties and Humanitarian Impact: Reports indicate that between October 7, 2023, and May 1, 2024, Israel has killed at least 34,000 Palestinians and injured over 78,000 in Gaza, according to a report from Boston University’s International Human Rights Clinic 1. Other sources, including a Wikipedia entry, suggest that the death toll may be as high as 62,413 due to various causes, including starvation 2.

  2. Legal Accusations: South Africa has filed a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide 34. The UN has also expressed concerns, with experts accusing Israel of committing "genocidal acts" 510.

  3. Reports from Human Rights Organizations: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide. Amnesty documented civilian casualties from airstrikes and stated that the evidence supports the claim of genocide 79. Human Rights Watch similarly reported on the deprivation of essential resources, which they argue constitutes acts of genocide 8.

  4. International Response: The international community's response has included calls for action to prevent further violence and protect civilians. The UN has urged the international community to intervene and prevent genocide against the Palestinian people 10.

Analysis

Source Evaluation

  • Academic and Legal Reports: The report from Boston University 1 is produced by a reputable institution, but it is essential to consider the potential bias inherent in advocacy-driven research. The methodology used to gather casualty figures and the criteria for defining genocide should be scrutinized.

  • Wikipedia Entries: While Wikipedia can provide a broad overview and references, it is not a primary source. The information should be cross-referenced with more authoritative sources to verify accuracy 23.

  • Media Outlets: The BBC 4 and NPR 6 provide coverage of the allegations and legal proceedings, but their reporting may reflect editorial biases. It is crucial to assess how these outlets frame the issue and whether they provide balanced perspectives.

  • Human Rights Organizations: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are well-respected organizations in the field of human rights. However, their conclusions may be influenced by their missions to advocate for human rights, which could introduce bias. Their findings are based on investigations that should be evaluated for transparency and methodological rigor 78.

Methodological Concerns

The claims of genocide hinge on the interpretation of international law, particularly the Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Establishing this intent is often complex and requires thorough evidence. The methodologies used by various organizations to assess intent and the scale of violence must be critically examined.

Conflicting Perspectives

While many organizations and legal entities assert that genocide is occurring, there are also voices within the international community that question this characterization. Some argue that the term "genocide" is being misused or politicized in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Additional perspectives from scholars and legal experts who may argue against the genocide classification would be beneficial for a more rounded understanding.

Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified

The claim that "there was a genocide in Gaza" remains unverified due to the complexity of the evidence and the legal definitions involved. While there are substantial reports of high casualty figures and accusations from reputable organizations and legal entities, the determination of genocide requires a clear establishment of intent, which is difficult to ascertain from the available data.

The evidence presented includes significant casualty numbers and allegations from human rights organizations, yet these findings may be influenced by advocacy perspectives and require rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, conflicting viewpoints exist within the international community regarding the use of the term "genocide" in this context, indicating that the situation is not universally agreed upon.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations in the available evidence, as the ongoing nature of the conflict and the challenges in data collection complicate the assessment. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information from multiple sources and consider the nuances involved in such serious allegations.

Sources

  1. Boston University. "Is Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza? New Report from BU School of Law’s International Human Rights Clinic Lays Out Case." BU Today
  2. Wikipedia. "Gaza genocide." Wikipedia
  3. Wikipedia. "Palestinian genocide accusation." Wikipedia
  4. BBC. "Gaza war: UN experts accuse Israel of 'genocidal acts'." BBC
  5. Reuters. "UN experts accuse Israel of genocidal acts and sexual violence." Reuters
  6. NPR. "Israel faces allegations of genocide in Gaza at International Court of Justice." NPR
  7. Amnesty International. "Amnesty International concludes Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." Amnesty International
  8. Human Rights Watch. "Israel’s Crime of Extermination, Acts of Genocide in Gaza." Human Rights Watch
  9. Amnesty International. "End Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." Amnesty International
  10. OHCHR. "Gaza: UN experts call on international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people." OHCHR

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: US President Donald Trump claimed on June 16, 2018, that excluding Russia from the Group of Eight in 2014 was a 'big mistake' and suggested that if Russia had remained in the G8, there would be no war in Ukraine.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: US President Donald Trump claimed on June 16, 2018, that excluding Russia from the Group of Eight in 2014 was a 'big mistake' and suggested that if Russia had remained in the G8, there would be no war in Ukraine.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: US President Donald Trump claimed on June 16, 2018, that excluding Russia from the Group of Eight in 2014 was a 'big mistake' and suggested that if Russia had remained in the G8, there would be no war in Ukraine.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Data from the Crowd Counting Consortium, a joint project of the Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Connecticut, shows that there were over twice as many street protests in the US in late January and February 2023 than in February 2017.
Needs Research
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Data from the Crowd Counting Consortium, a joint project of the Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Connecticut, shows that there were over twice as many street protests in the US in late January and February 2023 than in February 2017.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Data from the Crowd Counting Consortium, a joint project of the Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Connecticut, shows that there were over twice as many street protests in the US in late January and February 2023 than in February 2017.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The Salt Lake City Police Department reported that there is no known outstanding individual associated with the shooting incident and no continued threat to the public.
True

Fact Check: The Salt Lake City Police Department reported that there is no known outstanding individual associated with the shooting incident and no continued threat to the public.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The Salt Lake City Police Department reported that there is no known outstanding individual associated with the shooting incident and no continued threat to the public.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Senator Lindsey Graham stated that there are over 84 Senate cosponsors and 70 House cosponsors for legislation to enact sanctions and tariffs on Russia.
True

Fact Check: Senator Lindsey Graham stated that there are over 84 Senate cosponsors and 70 House cosponsors for legislation to enact sanctions and tariffs on Russia.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Senator Lindsey Graham stated that there are over 84 Senate cosponsors and 70 House cosponsors for legislation to enact sanctions and tariffs on Russia.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Connecticut State Police reported that there were no arrests made in connection with the protests that took place on June 14, 2023.
Needs Research

Fact Check: Connecticut State Police reported that there were no arrests made in connection with the protests that took place on June 14, 2023.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Connecticut State Police reported that there were no arrests made in connection with the protests that took place on June 14, 2023.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: There was a genocide in gaza | TruthOrFake Blog